Appeal 1997-1635
Application 08/319,667
prosecution is: In light of the Kokai and the European Patent
Application, is there a basis for a rejection under the
rationale of cases such as In re Kerkoven, 626 F.2d 846, 205
USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) (it is generally prima facie obvious to
combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior
art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third
composition which is also used for that purpose); In re
Pinten, 459 F.2d 1053, 1055, 173 USPQ 801, 803 (CCPA 1972)
(same); In re Dial, 326 F.2d 430, 432, 140 USPQ 244, 245 (CCPA
1964) (same); In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 276, 126 USPQ 186,
188 (CCPA 1960) (same)?
5.
On this record, there is a plausible basis for declining
to give any weight to applicants' specification showing of
unexpected results. According to applicants' Example 1
comparison, use of just an amine resulted in extensive solid
precipitation in the distillation column. In fact, if we are
to believe applicants, it was so bad that the "plant had to be
shut down after 3 hours." Of course, Example 1 contains no
details about the "plant."
- 21 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007